USPTO Patents Application 10508865

Appln, No. 10/508,865
Docket No. 0579-1069

REMARKS

In the Office Action mailed August 22, 2007, the
Examiner noted that claims 1-20 were pending and rejected claims
1-15 and 17-20 and objected to claims 16-19. Claims 2, 4, 6, 7,
8, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17 have been amended, claims 1, 3, 5 and 13
have been canceled, claims 21-23 have been added and, thus, in
view of the foregoing, claims 2, 4, 6-12, 14-23 remain pending
for reconsideration which is requested. No new matter has been
added. The Examiner's rejections and objections are traversed
below.

OBJECTIONS

Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15 and 17 are objected to for
various informalities. The various informalities have been
amended from the claims .

Withdrawal of the objections is respectfully requested.

REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102

Claims 1-6, 8 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Berstis, U.S. Patent Publication

No. 2005/0185515. The Applicant respectfully disagrees and
traverses the rejection with an argument and amendment. Berstis
discusses a system and method for performing horologic functions
using time cells, and it is explained in the Abstract that a time
cell has an insulated, charge storage element that receives an
electrostatic charge through its insulating medium (i.e. it is

8

Appln, No. 10/508,865
Docket No. 0579-1069

programmed overtime), the charge storage element then loses the
electrostatic charge through its insulating medium given the
reduction of electric potential of the programmed charge storage
element at a substantially known discharge rate, and by observing
the electric potential of the programmed charge storage element
at a given point in time, an elapsed time period can be
determined.

Claims 1, 3 and 5 have been cancelled and the features
of those claims are now found in claim 22. On page 5 of the
Office Action, it is asserted that Berstis, SISI 0004, 0012 and
0033 disclose "Electronic entity according to claim 3,
characterized in that, said capacitive component being charged
during a transaction, said measuring means are used during a
transaction of this type to provide information at least partly
representative of the time elapsed since the last transaction,"
as in cancelled claim 5. Berstis, SI 0033 states

The present invention may be implemented on a variety of
hardware and software platforms, as described above with
respect to FIG. lA and FIG. IB. More specifically, though, the
present invention is directed to employing time cells to
perform horological functions within commercial transactions,
wherein multiple embodiments enploy time cells in different
ways to capture the multiple advantages that are provided by
the unique horological characteristics of a time cell. Various
embodiments of the present invention are explained in more
detail hereinbelow with respect to the remaining figures.
[Emphasis added]

Nothing in the cited reference is enabling as to "said
residual charge being at least in part representative of a time

9

Appln, No. 10/508,865
Docket No. 0579-1069

elapsed since said first transaction." The reference simply
discusses that multiple embodiments employ time cells in
different ways to catch the multiple advantages that are provided
by the unique horological characteristics of a time cell. The
statement is so broad it covers everything and teaches nothing.
No one of ordinary skill in the art could take the teachings of
Berstis and produce an electronic entity where said residual
charge being at least in part representative of a time elapsed
since said first transaction. Any reference used to reject a
claim must itself be enabling for the subject matter of the
invention alleged to be taught (see In re Wilder , 429 F . 2d
447,166 U.S.P.Q. 545(C.C.P.A. 1970) and In re Collins , 462 F.2d
538,174 U.S.P.Q. 333(C.C.P.A. 1972)).

Further, claim 22 additionally recites "wherein fraud
is detected by the time elapsed between said first transaction
and said new transaction." Berstis does not disclose a fraud
being detected based on an elapsed time between a first and
second transaction.

For at least the reasons stated above, claim 22 and the
claims dependent therefrom are patentably distinguishable from
Berstis .

As regards amended claim 4, the present claims require

that electronic power entity be located external to the
transactional electronic entity. The coupling decoupling of the
capacitive component, and thus the initialization of the

10

Appln, No. 10/508,865
Docket No. 0579-1069

component is simple as it does not involve the connection of the
electronic entity within the reader with which the electronic
entity may exchange data. Therefore, Berstis does not teach or
suggest "that the electronic entity is autonomous and in that
said electrical power supply is external to the electronic
entity, " as in amended claim 4 which depends from claim 2 .

Withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.

REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103

Claims 7-11 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Berstis in view of Baglee, U.S.
Patent No. 5,049,958. The Applicant respectfully disagrees and
traverses the rejection with an argument. Baglee discusses a
dynamic read/write memory cell array that employs stacked
capacitors consisting of three levels of conductor separated by
dielectric material. Baglee adds nothing to deficiencies of
Bertsis as applied to independent claim 21, and therefore, the
combination of Berstis and Baglee, taken separately or in
combination, fails to render obvious claims 7-11 and 20.

Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Berstis in view of Nakai, U.S. Patent No.
6,784,933. The Applicant respectfully disagrees and traverses
the rejection with an argument. Nakai discusses a dynamic
read/write memory cell array that employs stacked capacitors
consisting of three levels of conductor separated by dielectric

11

Appln, No. 10/508,865
Docket No. 0579-1069

material. Nakai adds nothing to deficiencies of Berstis as

applied to independent claim 21, and therefore, the combination
of Berstis and Baglee, taken separately or in combination, fails
to render obvious claim 12.

Withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.

ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER

On page 8 of the Office Action, the Office states
claims 13-16 would be allowable subject matter if rewritten in
independent form. Claim 13 has been cancelled and replaced by
new claim 22. Claim 21 is inclusive of the features of claims 1,
3, 5 and 13. Thus, it is believed that claims 14-16 and 21 are
allowable .

NEW CLAIM

Claim 23 is new. Support for claim 23 found in

cancelled claims 1, 3 and 5 and the paragraph spanning pages 9
and 10 of the Specification. The Applicant submits that no new
matter has been added by the addition of claim 23. The prior art
fails to disclose or render obvious "a field-effect transistor,
said field-effect transistor measures a residual charge in said
capacitive component during a new transaction, said residual
charge being at least in part representative of a time elapsed
since said first transaction, wherein fraud is detected by the
time elapsed between said first transaction and said new
transaction . "

12

Appln, No. 10/508,865
Docket No. 0579-1069

SUMMARY

It is submitted that the claims satisfy the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. It is also submitted
that claims 2, 4, 6-12, 14-23 continue to be allowable. The
claims are therefore in a condition suitable for allowance. An
early Notice of Allowance is requested.

The Commissioner is hereby authorized in this,
concurrent, and future replies, to charge payment or credit any
overpayment to Deposit Account No. 25-0120 for any additional
fees required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.16 or under 37 C.F.R. § 1.17.

Respectfully submitted,
YOUNG & THOMPSON

/James J. Livingston, Jr./
James J. Livingston, Jr.
Reg. No. 55,394
745 South 23'''^ Street
Arlington, VA 22202
Telephone (703) 521-2297
Telefax (703) 685-0573
(703) 979-4709

JJL/lk

13